I don't think this counts. The most detailed it gets is this:
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS for $505 Million. What exactly is that? People with AIDS already have housing options. They have the same options as other people. There is literally nothing in that line item that explains why half a billion is needed for that. Where's the report, wheres the description of number of employees to administer, and an explanation of why thats needed.
Another thing: In the period between 2012 and 2019, the
number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees
at HUD declined from 8,576 to 6,837, a
reduction of 20 percent. This loss of staff
presented serious risks to HUD’s ability to meet
the needs of its customers, protect against
cybersecurity threats, and deliver on the
mission.
Where is the backup of that statement - "HUD’s ability to meet
the needs of its customers, protect against
cybersecurity threats, and deliver on the
mission. "
Protecting against cybersecurity should literally be handled by a different org within fedgov!
Also why 2000 more employees? Are they also taking an elevator down the limestone mountain and riding around on bikes to file a loan?
The stories coming out of DOGE are like this, how do you expect me to read this PDF without a ton of cynicism?
It is totally inappropriate for a tax base to fund something over $1M that has nothing backing up what it is for. Let's get rid of FRAUD and ABUSE!
I should note that I try to avoid flagging unless the entire comment is an outright attack and there is nothing of substance whatsoever in it. The "these are things they don't want to answer" is partially fitting that criteria, but I simply focused on the implicit question.
I figured a comment like that is better (and a bit funnier) to to simply disprove than hide. And I didn't need much work to disprove it. Any little nudges to help peope realize that "yes, a good 95%+ of government budgets is publicly viewable" is a good step forward.
The government does: https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2024-Budget-i...
I guess he got flagged as I was replying, but there's his transparency. The government isn't a private corporation.
As you mentioned DOGE is looping some holes to not disclose their budget nor staff. That's not how the government works.
I don't think this counts. The most detailed it gets is this:
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS for $505 Million. What exactly is that? People with AIDS already have housing options. They have the same options as other people. There is literally nothing in that line item that explains why half a billion is needed for that. Where's the report, wheres the description of number of employees to administer, and an explanation of why thats needed.
Another thing: In the period between 2012 and 2019, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees at HUD declined from 8,576 to 6,837, a reduction of 20 percent. This loss of staff presented serious risks to HUD’s ability to meet the needs of its customers, protect against cybersecurity threats, and deliver on the mission.
Where is the backup of that statement - "HUD’s ability to meet the needs of its customers, protect against cybersecurity threats, and deliver on the mission. "
Protecting against cybersecurity should literally be handled by a different org within fedgov!
Also why 2000 more employees? Are they also taking an elevator down the limestone mountain and riding around on bikes to file a loan?
The stories coming out of DOGE are like this, how do you expect me to read this PDF without a ton of cynicism?
It is totally inappropriate for a tax base to fund something over $1M that has nothing backing up what it is for. Let's get rid of FRAUD and ABUSE!
Orig comment: These are the things they don't want to answer. As a Tax Payer I want to know what that money was for.
There is literally nothing in that worth flagging. HN users are becoming less tolerant of opposing ideas.
I should note that I try to avoid flagging unless the entire comment is an outright attack and there is nothing of substance whatsoever in it. The "these are things they don't want to answer" is partially fitting that criteria, but I simply focused on the implicit question.
I figured a comment like that is better (and a bit funnier) to to simply disprove than hide. And I didn't need much work to disprove it. Any little nudges to help peope realize that "yes, a good 95%+ of government budgets is publicly viewable" is a good step forward.